Critics love to claim that the media is unbalanced, biased, and only tells one side of the story. But as a former journalist, I can safely say that in many cases, that’s because only one side of the story is actually available. Despite repeated requests for comment, corporate spokespeople, officials, and lawyers often choose silence.
Sometimes, the media chooses a narrative and seeks comments as an afterthought. But often, sources decline to speak at all. Legal teams hide behind a misused “sub judice” excuse, claiming an outdated understanding of not being able to speak because a case is before the courts. However, a Supreme Court ruling has made it clear that those in legal cases can speak about them unless there is a real chance of a miscarriage of justice. This is a very high bar for silence.
Yet time and time again, companies or individuals respond with a tight-lipped “no comment,” even as reputations unravel.
Silence is golden, say some? Not in an era where the internet is forever.
When companies or institutions refuse to engage, they effectively outsource their image to critics, competitors, angry customers, or activist groups who have access to social media in seconds. And when those are the only voices in a story, the resulting narrative is inevitably one-sided, and it’s not the media’s fault.
There’s another old saying that “there’s no such thing as bad publicity.” That’s also untrue. In fact, there’s no quicker way to guarantee bad publicity, than failing to give your side of the story.
One example is education policy. Economists and development experts agree: early childhood education is the single best investment in children a country can make. Study after study shows that good quality childhood education boosts school readiness, is correlated with higher lifetime earnings, and reduction in poverty and crime with one American famous study showing positive generational effects in the children of those who benefited from early childhood interventions in the sixties. The World Bank, among others, has published reams of data proving that nutrition, stimulation, and learning in the early years offer the greatest financial returns.
And yet, in South Africa, the dominant public debate focused for years on university-level fees. “Fees Must Fall” became a national rallying cry. It made headlines, drove policymaking, and reshaped budgets. Meanwhile, young children were left out of the conversation. The result was that SA education budgets followed the noise, not the evidence.
The same dynamic is playing out in public health. Millions of rand is now being spent on how “sugar kills”, with lobbyists and activists painting sugar as toxic. This week a South African study was published in which scientists found no correlation at all between Grade 6 learners in Nelson Mandela Bay those who drank sugary sweetened beverages a week and those who were overweight. The researchers asked the children how many sugary drinks they had per week while noting whether they were overweight, obese or normal weight.
Yet the dominant narrative is that sugary drinks are to blame for overweight children and South Africa should continue with its sugar tax.
Many drinks and food manufacturers have remained largely silent in this sugar tax debate and are likely to face strict food labelling rules targetting sugar and salt. When industry doesn’t speak , others speak for them, and there is no assurance that facts will be heard.
The loudest voice often wins. And sadly, if you’re not willing to speak up, then one can’t blame the media when you don’t like the story.
– Katharine Child
Account Manager